Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

davidhpc

Members
  • Posts

    1,306
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by davidhpc

  1. Awww, and don't forget research from a university says that Polish people on average produce more joules of work per hour than British people.
  2. It's becoming interesting now what will happen to these properties and the subsequent losses on the loans. It's saying the banks are appointing receivers of rents to keep the thing afloat as best it can while deciding what to do with the properties. As we have bailed out the banks, are these just becoming state subsidised housing? A lot of these can obviously only be sold for peanuts, are losses still piling up? None of this junk will make it into haliwide stats or repo stats etc.
  3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8092407.stm BBC report on possession stats
  4. i agree. i'm very upset that blanchflower is getting favourable press.
  5. I don't really see them harrassing the public sector with any of this. edit: for the aforementioned reason, they don't pay tax, just give back some of the tax they have taken.
  6. which bit? public servants? all of em take tax money and then kindly give some of it back in PAYE etc. they could save themselves a job and just take the net amount. its a bit like you giving me a tenner, and then me giving you it back, and saying I gave you a tenner.
  7. More harrassment of the private sector by the crooks stuffing their pockets with our taxes (they do very kindly give some of it back in taxes).
  8. looks like Jacqui Smith's husband doesn't it? (or did after he was caught watching pornos)
  9. Bring back the 'Tax abuser' thread. nu-liebour moderators?
  10. They are trying to stop your NI contributions too if you have savings etc. They try drag you in on Saturday afternoons and force you to apply for terrible jobs and if you refuse to play ball or they can manage to intimidate you into losing your rag then they will stop the NI too. The nicey, nicey nu-liebour luvvie treatment is coming to an end too, abrupt and condescending tones are the order of the day, burly security guards are also appearing in the job centres to intimidate.
  11. There are many, many people who had a hand in this crisis. But if you had to single out just one for the Ace of Spades, for me it would be Greenspan.
  12. In the city I live in, people on minimum wage could have bought a house quite comfortably in the late 90s. Trouble was these people didn't want property at that time. I think because i) they hadn't seen prices get further and further away from them and ii) they hadn't seen people 'make' relatively large amounts of money on property, eg 10s of thousands of pounds increases in 12 months.
  13. I've said all I need to say on it. If you disagree with it fair enough. If you want to ask anything sensible and do it politely then go ahead.
  14. and as for CARs, an identical process is followed, just the amounts loaned would have to ensure the bank remained with in the required limits. IE. the £90 initial loan may be allowed if it was for a loan secured on Mr. B's house with a low LTV. If Mr. B had a dodgy credit history and the loan was not secured on anything, the bank may only be able to stretch to £50 to leave itself with adequate capital to remain within the rules.
  15. There is this unhelpful and misleading example being used where there is the re-depositing of the loan in the same bank. If you take the simple textbook example it goes something like Mr A deposits £100 in a bank. Mr B borrows £90 and spends it in Mr C's pub. Mr C deposits £90 in the bank Mr D borrows £81 and spends it in Mr E's shop. Mr E deposits £81 in the bank. so we have £271 of deposits all from the same £100. The bank holds £100 in cash and is owed £171 by Mr B(edit from C) and Mr D. This putting money in the same bank goes something like Mr A deposits £100 in a bank Mr B borrows £90 and the bank deposits it in Mr B's account. Mr C borrows £81 and the bank deposits it in Mr C's account. so the bank has £271 of deposits £100 in cash and £171 owed by Mr B and Mr C. but money loaned to Mr B and Mr C is not likely to stay in those accounts. it's an intentionally misleading way of trying to show what happens.
  16. it has to have the money to lend, if it doesn't have it, it needs to borrow it from somewhere.
  17. you, Mr Nice & Co are just completely confused about it. I've worked in a bank, I know how it works. The BofE know how it works and whoever wrote the Wiki knows how it works. You can either start listening and maybe learn something or carry on talking rollocks.
  18. I still don't understand what you are getting at. I'll happily move on. I would like to say to others, that the fact we have capital adequacy ratios does not mean we do not have a fractional reserve banking system.
  19. I'm not sure what you are getting at here. If it doesn't get redeposited or it gets spent abroad or stuffed under someone's mattress then there is no future deposit to be relent. so? if it gets spent at Marks and Sparks, they will put it in their bank account.
  20. Man A comes into the bank and deposits £100. The bank decides to keep £10 in reserve and lend out £90. In simple terms, to make the max profit out of this £90 the bank could lend it out at 35% interest on a credit card without too many complications. This would obviously be a lot riskier than lending it at 5% on a steady-eddie 50% LTV mortgage. Banks look for a quick buck and will take wild risks if allowed to, so the banks are given ratios to ensure they have adequate capital. weighted more heavily towards the riskier loans. The money loaned still gets spent in the economy and redeposited in banks, ie. it is a fractional reserve system.
  21. The fact banks are subject to capital adequacy ratios does not mean we do not have a fractional reserve banking system. The two co-exist quite nicely. Yes banks are subject to CARs and we have a fractional reserve banking system.
  22. This is one example of nu-liebour's policies of the last decade coming back to bite them on the ar5e. Public services just won't be able to cope with rising tide of unemployment and homeless etc. With tax receipts falling off a cliff, things look grim.
  23. it sounds worse..... sounds like renters will have to pay tax so that the US government can give it to the banks to pay a part of some homeowners interest with it.
  24. this is, in effect, just giving money to banks, isn't it?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.